On This Page

Filter

These are the filters currently being used to limit the search results. Click on the
icon to remove the filter.

min answer › question first answered

2019-05-24T11:46:26.36Z

answer › answering member constituency

Charnwood

answer › answering member › label

Biography information for Edward Argar

Sort by

This list shows the properties that you can sort by. Click on to sort in ascending order and to sort in descending order. The properties that you're currently sorting by are
shown at the top of the list. Click on to remove a sort and or to reverse the current sort order. Click on the icon to remove all the sorting. Note that sorting can significantly slow down the
loading of the page.

View

Choose what information you want to view about each item. There are some pre-defined
views, but starred properties are always present no matter what the view. You can
star properties by clicking on the icon. The currently starred icons have a icon; clicking on it will unstar the property.

<p>Information about the outcomes of appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security
and Child Support) is published at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics</p><p>
</p><p>Decisions on benefit, typically on a person’s entitlement to benefit, or its
rate of payment, can be overturned on appeal for a variety of reasons. For instance,
further evidence, including oral testimony, may be provided at the hearing. HM Courts
&amp; Tribunals Service cannot comment on decisions made by the independent tribunal
judiciary.</p><p> </p><p>Latest figures (to March 2019) indicate that since Personal
Independence Payment was introduced, 4.1 million decisions have been made, and of
these, 10% have been appealed and 5% have been overturned at Tribunals.</p><p> </p><p>Between
April 2014 and December 2018, 4.1 million Employment and Support Allowance (post Work
Capability Assessment) decisions have been made. Of these, 8% have been appealed and
4% have been overturned.</p>

<p>Information about the outcomes of appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security
and Child Support) is published at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics</p><p>
</p><p>Decisions on benefit, typically on a person’s entitlement to benefit, or its
rate of payment, can be overturned on appeal for a variety of reasons. For instance,
further evidence, including oral testimony, may be provided at the hearing. HM Courts
&amp; Tribunals Service cannot comment on decisions made by the independent tribunal
judiciary.</p><p> </p><p>Latest figures (to March 2019) indicate that since Personal
Independence Payment was introduced, 4.1 million decisions have been made, and of
these, 10% have been appealed and 5% have been overturned at Tribunals.</p><p> </p><p>Between
April 2014 and December 2018, 4.1 million Employment and Support Allowance (post Work
Capability Assessment) decisions have been made. Of these, 8% have been appealed and
4% have been overturned.</p>

<p>Information about the outcomes of appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security
and Child Support) is published at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics</p><p>
</p><p>Decisions on benefit, typically on a person’s entitlement to benefit, or its
rate of payment, can be overturned on appeal for a variety of reasons. For instance,
further evidence, including oral testimony, may be provided at the hearing. HM Courts
&amp; Tribunals Service cannot comment on decisions made by the independent tribunal
judiciary.</p><p> </p><p>Latest figures (to March 2019) indicate that since Personal
Independence Payment was introduced, 4.1 million decisions have been made, and of
these, 10% have been appealed and 5% have been overturned at Tribunals.</p><p> </p><p>Between
April 2014 and December 2018, 4.1 million Employment and Support Allowance (post Work
Capability Assessment) decisions have been made. Of these, 8% have been appealed and
4% have been overturned.</p>

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average waiting time is for a
decision in the appeal stage of a personal independence payment application for those
transferring from disability living allowance.

<p>Waiting times for appeals against decisions made about Personal Independence Payment
(PIP) are published at:</p><p>www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics</p><p>
</p><p>The average time for a decision to be made in the appeal stage of a PIP application
for those transferring from disability living allowance in the period April 2018 to
March 2019 (the latest period for which data are available) is 35 weeks<sup> 1</sup></p><p>
</p><ol><li>Data include cases cleared with and without a Tribunal hearing. An SSCS
appeal may be captured more than once as a clearance should the original decision
be overturned, set aside or if an Upper Tribunal re-hearing is granted. The data are
based on the time from receipt in HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to the last
decision within the input period.</li></ol><p> </p><p>Although care is taken when
processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent
in any large-scale case management system and are the best data that are available.
The data are a subset of official statistics extracted from the case management system
on a different date.</p><p> </p><p>Waiting times are calculated from receipt of an
appeal to its final disposal. An appeal is not necessarily disposed of at its first
hearing. The final disposal decision on the appeal may be reached after an earlier
hearing had been adjourned (which may be directed by the judge for a variety of reasons,
such as to seek further evidence), or after an earlier hearing date had been postponed
(again, for a variety of reasons, often at the request of the appellant). An appeal
may also have been decided at an earlier date by the First-tier Tribunal, only for
the case to have gone on to the Upper Tribunal, to be returned once again to the First-tier,
for its final disposal.</p>

<p>Currently, there is no sentencing guideline for conspiracy to commit grievous bodily
harm (GBH). This offence is covered by common law and separate to the offences related
to causing or inflicting GBH.</p><p> </p><p>It is for the Sentencing Council for England
and Wales, which is independent of government, to develop sentencing guidelines and
monitor their use. The Sentencing Council are in the process of reviewing the definitive
guideline on assault offences, and anticipate issuing a consultation on a revised
guideline in early 2020.</p><p> </p><p>The Assault guideline and evaluation are available
here:</p><p><a href="https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/?type=publications&amp;s=&amp;cat=&amp;topic=assault&amp;year"
target="_blank">https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/?type=publications&amp;s=&amp;cat=&amp;topic=assault&amp;year</a>=</p>

<p>HMCTS is committed to ensuring that Common Platform maintains and improves the
level of access to justice across the criminal justice system. A key part of Reform
design is engaging with users to understand their needs and develop a system that
offers greater engagement opportunities for example by providing an additional route
for users to engage through a digital process.</p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice
is to undertake an overarching evaluation of the Reform programme to understand the
effect of reform on access to justice. An interim report is expected by Summer 2021.</p>

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for how long the Digital Markup system
was in place for legal advisers and court associates in magistrates courts; what the
cost was of implementing and running that system; and when the Common Platform system
will be fully operational.

<p>The Digital Mark Up (DMU) system was piloted from 2016, and national roll-out was
completed by March 2018. The total cost incurred to the end of 2018/19 was £13.5m.
In addition, there are on-going support costs which in 2018/19 were £600k.</p><p>
</p><p>We aim to have the common platform system fully operational during 2020/21
but, as with any program, timelines are continually reviewed.</p>

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential
merits of the Law Society’s recommendation that the Government create (a) a statutory
code of practice for the use of algorithms in the justice system and (b) a national
register of algorithms in the justice system.

<p>We have noted the Law Society of England and Wales’ report with interest. We recognise
the importance of ethics when designing AI systems for use in the criminal justice
system. The Government is committed to the better use and management of data and algorithmic
tools.</p>

<p>The Ministry is committed to ensuring the justice system is supported by a range
of quality language services that meet the needs of all those that require them.</p><p>
</p><p>As part of the new generation of language service contracts which began on
31 October 2016, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has appointed 'The Language Shop' (part
of the London Borough of Newham) to provide independent quality assurance of the services
provided under the other contracts, including those awarded to the thebigword Ltd.
As part of that assurance, The Language Shop also investigate complaints and specific
concerns throughout the contract period and conduct regular customer satisfaction
surveys of MOJ users. The results of the surveys are discussed at quarterly quality
board meetings and are fed back to the suppliers to improve the service provided.
These services help to ensure the ongoing delivery of high-quality language services
to the department and her agencies.</p><p> </p><p>Details of the statistics of complaints
received are published quarterly on the gov.uk website and are available to the public.</p>

<p>The Department does not hold central records for expenditure on refreshments. However,
the following restrictions apply to all staff with effect from August 2010:</p><p>
</p><ul><li>No lunches, tea or coffees can be ordered for any internal meeting (i.e.
a meeting between MoJ staff). Water is freely available in our offices.</li></ul><p>
</p><ul><li>For all external meetings (i.e. a meeting between MoJ staff and external
stakeholders), lunch, tea and coffee purchases require Director-level sign-off and
are only allowed in exceptional circumstances.</li></ul><p> </p><p>To provide information
on departmental expenditure on refreshments would involve disproportionate cost.</p>